What is the right and fair way to stop Mike Hearn?

[Mike Hearn]

Tor's got a structure that makes running fake Tor nodes not quite as trivial as it sounds. Remember that Tor node operators are not anonymous, and Tor on the other hand is a semi-centralized service.

Sigh. Apparently I have to add you to my list of people who don't read, too? Quoting from my first post on this thread:

Tor places much less emphasis on decentralisation than Bitcoin does and relies on a kind of central control by a group of "directory authorities", which can (and do) ban nodes.

You don't have to remind me how Tor works, I am well aware. The directory authorities have no real way to know if nodes are related, if the operator doesn't make silly mistakes like giving them all related names.

In any case, my personal objection isn't so much the passports for Tor idea - that's a genuinely hard problem - it's the application of that to zeroconf and fee estimation where there's much better ways to do it by not relying on trusting third parties. That's an example of lazily resorting to centralization when there's better solutions out there.

The code for fee estimation is being implemented right now, so if you have something better now would be the time to build a convincing prototype.

I started writing a response to the trolling and self-congratulatory garbage that followed after this part of your post, then thought better of it. Actions speak louder than words, don't they?

[coinrevo]

The much better question would have been: if I am a bitcoin user and don't agree with the direction of the cryptocurrency or functions one developer has implemented - what can I do? If I install a piece of software, I always have the option to deinstall it. But I can't just chose not to use bitcoin. I might depend on it. And only the smallest fraction of people have the ability to change bitcoin the way they would want it.

Peter and other developers frequently argue along the lines of: "if the above posters were serious they'd go do something other than just argue." Well, if you really think about, this is a very naive view of the world. Say somebody has a different idea for a protocol, can he just go ahead and implement it into bitcoin? Of course not. Say a person has one very specific request about one particular function which he wants to change. There might be ten others who think that change would be a bad idea.

But say I disagree with the use of passports as a concept. This can be argued on a non-technical basis. I reject the use of passports on principle, mostly because it puts people without passports at a disadvantage. A more clear violation of the anarchism isn't possible, because anarchists believe that states should exist in the first place. Some even give up their passports voluntarily, so that they are not are associated with them. Many poor people don't have passports. To me this is crucial, because bitcoin should be as evenly accessible as possible.

In political systems we have the concept of voting to reach a conclusion. No action required, because not everyone can take action (not every user can be a developer, that should be obvious). Traditional concepts of software don't apply. I can't choose a different fork, like I chose a linux distribution. There are network effects.

The idea that arguments and reason don't apply is very telling. there is no source code I can write to stop a certain proposal. there is no action to stop some feature. the sum of actions matters, and some actions one person might consider bad. to think of these as a strict composition (sum project = action1, ... ,n) is wrong.

The only I thing I can do use a different cryptocurrency or start a different cryptocurrency if I disagree with the overall direction. And this has not necessarily something to do with technical arguments or source code. There is a reason why these ideas are highly unpopular. People in the foundation who are only concerned with commercializing bitcoin refer to people on bitcointalk and reddit as the mob. Just shows what their idea of distributed decision making is. At some point somebody will try and restart a project where some principles are preserved if the current trend continues (bitcoin being more and more a project with ties to US corporations, speaking with US government, etc).

[NanoAkron]

Mike & Augusto - what do you say to the billions of poor and unbanked people around the world who stand to benefit from the personal-banking aspects of bitcoin, yet who don't have passports, encrypted USBs or other forms of trustworthy ID? Why are you interested in centralised solutions that only affect bitcoiners from wealthy nations?

Personal banking aspects of Bitcoin? Is this a joke? Let me refresh your mind: Bitcoin is a P2P software, not an bank emulator.

And almost unbelievable reply from someone who should know better.

[Peter Todd]

Tor's got a structure that makes running fake Tor nodes not quite as trivial as it sounds. Remember that Tor node operators are not anonymous, and Tor on the other hand is a semi-centralized service.

Sigh. Apparently I have to add you to my list of people who don't read, too? Quoting from my first post on this thread:

In a public forum you write stuff for other people to read as well as the person you are replying too.

The code for fee estimation is being implemented right now, so if you have something better now would be the time to build a convincing prototype.

Note how Gavin's backed off of his original pull-req in favor of something significantly more cautious, almost identical to what I argued should be done re: estimation. As for replacement itself, I've got higher impact priorities right now - someone else will probably do it for me. (incidentally, there's a IIRC $5,000 bounty for it)

I started writing a response to the trolling and self-congratulatory garbage that followed after this part of your post, then thought better of it. Actions speak louder than words, don't they?

You'd be wise to calm down and think a little harder about what I wrote there.

[johnyj]

Bitcoin is mainly a monetary system more than a transaction system. As long as the transaction related features do not hurt the character of monetary system (e.g. fixed and finite supply, fungibility, decentralized hash power), everyone should be able to put their own implementation at another layer. A modular design with many interfaces will be the best solution

[Bitware]

The only way is to get mining pool operators to vote against any questionable code coming from compromised developers or code that goes against our own beliefs... or create a system of pools where our voices will be heard and vigorously enforced. The Bitcoin Foundation and Core Developers mean nothing without miner approval. It is time to turn the thumbscrews.

[coinrevo]

bitcoin is vote by economic majority. miners joining pools are effectively giving that vote away for free. amazingly, the fact that miners have something to say about what rules apply to the system hasn't quite sunk in yet. Its because if miners are completely distributed (no pools), then there is nothing to fear, because they might not realize they have the power to reject features. imagine if P2P pools get a large share and install a voting system about features.

in a way bitcoin is a new form of political system, a new computational process to coordinate human/computer interaction. satoshi knew this as indicated by the comment in the paper that one CPU = one vote. I believe current developers don't fully understand the implications as much as satoshi did, even though we have now 3 years more of history. the idea that is only about writing code is immensely naive. users don't write code, and miners don't write code. yet they can have views on what are good and bad "features".

at the beginning there was much less reason to reject features, as they were mostly optimizations of the original design. I think these new ideas are quite far away from the original ideal. why did satoshi work tirelessly on a P2P currency (I would argue for at least 5 years)? so that rich people in the West can do their shopping more easily?

instead of working on this stuff, developers could spend their time on quite different architectures. for example with a true BitDNS system one would solve the PKI problem. not realistic at the moment, but I can't believe that integration with CA's and passports will go through either. the internet is basically compromised all the way down to the hardware. I wonder where some people have been in 2013. Gavin argues privately that regulation is inevitable. question is: regulation by whom - regulation by economic majority/users, or regulation by government. Gavin and Mike seem to believe only governments, specifically the US government, can handle those bad criminals using bitcoin for their purposes. first one on the list of those criminals is wikileaks. I mean in some countries compromise of identity through passport might endanger someone's life. If you're living in North Korea or Iran, that is not too far fetched, and one can imagine scenarios where use of cryptocurrencies is dangerous in US and Europe. For instance one can imagine that say Catalonia wants independence from Spain. if cryptocurrencies are in widespread use a group of people can collectively decide not to pay their taxes anymore. this kind of scenario becomes realistic in 3-5 years given current adoption rates. Suddenly things are not so easy more. bitcoin is anything - but its not non-political.

[MarketNeutral]

Excellent points, all. It always bears repeating that miners vote with their hashes. Further, miners ought to have clarity into precisely what the Bitcoin developers are implementing into the code, that they may make informed decisions. Transparency, in this regard, is vital for the health of the bitcoin ecosystem. It is also vital that experienced programmers review the code and changes made thereto, and that dissent does not become taboo. Overall, I'm impressed by quite a few individuals involved across the whole bitcoin system, including the development team, the merchants, and the miners.

[Mr. Gabu]

I have no contact to big pool operators ("miners"). And why would these new millionaires care about me or Bitcoin?

[augustocroppo]

Mike & Augusto - what do you say to the billions of poor and unbanked people around the world who stand to benefit from the personal-banking aspects of bitcoin, yet who don't have passports, encrypted USBs or other forms of trustworthy ID? Why are you interested in centralised solutions that only affect bitcoiners from wealthy nations?

Personal banking aspects of Bitcoin? Is this a joke? Let me refresh your mind: Bitcoin is a P2P software, not an bank emulator.

And almost unbelievable reply from someone who should know better.

...and? What kind of reply you wanted?

The Bitcoin software was not designed to help the "billions of poor and unbanked people around the world" create their own banks. By the way, perhaps you did not understand what was proposed by Mike Hearn. The idea of zero-knowledge proof will not stop anyone to use the software. It is not a requirement to use the software. No one will have to carry government issued passports or encrypted keys to have access to the Bitcoin P2P network. If implemented this will be one additional OPTION to perform a specific task, not a REQUIREMENT to use the software.

[houseofchill]

With respect to all you programming geniuses, you all speak as if you're in a vacuum in space. At this late stage the core development team still hasn't understood the vision of a currency that doesn't depend on government approval??

The world is heading into the Fukushima nuclear disaster with Japanese Secret State Laws to reduce the reporting of how melted the reactors are and how many Japanese are getting sick. China and the US and allies in the Pacific are on the brink of war over some islands but really about whether the white race or yellow race should rule the planet. The US is about to start the next QE, Europe and Japan the same, to no success. There are holes in all the banks so big they can fit the moon thru. Do these governments look like they know what the fuck they're doing?!

I want to ask Mike Hearn, Peter Todd, and Gavin what kind of wisdom and order they hope government regulations would bring bitcoin. I'm sick and tired of hearing Mike Hearn's stupid ideas about red-listing and using national passports as trust certificates for bitcoin. I've invested too much money and time and I've been on r/bitcoin for the last 9 months every day spreading the bitcoin gospel, rebutting wanna-be economists that deflation destroys society, and predicting that the war machine will be dismantled forever. Mike Hearn, Peter Todd and others should be ashamed of themselves. I'm so angry I don't know how to say it.

[gglon]

... I'm so angry I don't know how to say it.

It would be best if you use your anger as a motivation to carefully read what devs propose, consider all cons and pros of a given solution, compare it with your solution and then criticize it.

So far all dev's solutions mentioned in this topic in no way limit bitcoin. They just expand its usage cases. They don't have to be perfect to be implemented. It's enough if they are better than what we currently have, and don't limit further improvements.

[coinrevo]

people should learn about where bitcoin comes from. Wei Dai and Timothy May weren't joking when they wrote the following. satoshi did a lot to hide his political views, but there can be no doubt he was inspired by them. the proposal to use government passports is a complete dismissal of these core beliefs which brought about cryptocurrencies in the first place. no crypto-anarchist would even for one second consider this idea, even it would bring great benefit. I consider this day, as the day when bitcoin the software project, and bitcoin the ideal (finally) became two separate things.

"I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. "

http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, Timothy C. May <tcmay@netcom.com>
...
The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders, and fears of societal disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto anarchy will allow national secrets to be trade freely and will allow illicit and stolen materials to be traded. An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of crypto anarchy.

Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of medieval guilds and the social power structure, so too will cryptologic methods fundamentally alter the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions. Combined with emerging information markets, crypto anarchy will create a liquid market for any and all material which can be put into words and pictures. And just as a seemingly minor invention like barbed wire made possible the fencing-off of vast ranches and farms, thus altering forever the concepts of land and property rights in the frontier West, so too will the seemingly minor discovery out of an arcane branch of mathematics come to be the wire clippers which dismantle the barbed wire around intellectual property.

http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

[houseofchill]

I'll cut out your Gordian knot. In a critical and passionate situation, only an academic will reply in such a cold hearted way. The best way to stop Mike Hearn is to raise our individual voices and say what's on our mind. It's common sense. No need for academia. You tell me how critical infrastructure systems will be affected just for Fukushima, the food chain poisoning, the panic and the response. The powers that be only plan for chaos. That's how they reset their power structure. Any guidance from regulators will be according to the moneyed interests. They plan to divide and conquer thru out the chaos. Their only plan. I say don't give them any lever to lean on.

[augustocroppo]

I want to ask Mike Hearn, Peter Todd, and Gavin what kind of wisdom and order they hope government regulations would bring bitcoin. I'm sick and tired of hearing Mike Hearn's stupid ideas about red-listing and using national passports as trust certificates for bitcoin. I've invested too much money and time and I've been on r/bitcoin for the last 9 months every day spreading the bitcoin gospel, rebutting wanna-be economists that deflation destroys society, and predicting that the war machine will be dismantled forever. Mike Hearn, Peter Todd and others should be ashamed of themselves. I'm so angry I don't know how to say it.

 

Take a break, dude. You are going nuts. Bitcoin is just a software, not a new religion.

[Mr. Gabu]

I want to ask Mike Hearn, Peter Todd, and Gavin what kind of wisdom and order they hope government regulations would bring bitcoin. I'm sick and tired of hearing Mike Hearn's stupid ideas about red-listing and using national passports as trust certificates for bitcoin.

They would say: "If you a serious, you would do other things than arguing." Then a paid shill from the Bitcoin foundation comes in and adds you should supply code or start you own alt. (Obvious all your code for the Bitcoin project would be rejected because you are no "core dev".)

Or they say "miners decide, they control the development", which means 5 pool operators (making $30.000 till $100.000 every day!!) decide the future of bitcoin.
Funny thing is, most of the big pools are run by core developers like Slush (Slushs Pool) and Luke-Jr (Eligius).

They are fucking hypocrites and liars.

They don't care about bitcoin, they laugh about it, they just care about their income und their millions of $$$$ or Euros.

[augustocroppo]

They would say: "If you a serious, you would do other things than arguing." Then a paid shill from the Bitcoin foundation comes in and adds you should supply code or start you own alt.
Or they say "miners decide, they control the development", which means 5 pool operators decide the future of bitcoin.
Funny thing is, most of the big pools are run by core developers like Slush (Slushs Pool) and Luke-Jr (Eligius).

They are fucking hypocrite and liars.

They don't care about bitcoin, they laugh about it, they just care about their income und their millions of $$$$ or Euros.

If you think the Bitcoin software is being managed by a morally corrupted group of people, why are you still here?

[anti-scam]

I'll cut out your Gordian knot. In a critical and passionate situation, only an academic will reply in such a cold hearted way. The best way to stop Mike Hearn is to raise our individual voices and say what's on our mind. It's common sense. No need for academia. You tell me how critical infrastructure systems will be affected just for Fukushima, the food chain poisoning, the panic and the response. The powers that be only plan for chaos. That's how they reset their power structure. Any guidance from regulators will be according to the moneyed interests. They plan to divide and conquer thru out the chaos. Their only plan. I say don't give them any lever to lean on.

If you can do things like prevent Sybil attacks and maintain decentralized legders with common sense then why didn't you invent Bitcoin years ago? Academia created Bitcoin. It would not exist without "cold hearted" logic, mathematics, and cryptography.

They would say: "If you a serious, you would do other things than arguing." Then a paid shill from the Bitcoin foundation comes in and adds you should supply code or start you own alt. (Obvious all your code would be rejected because you are no "core dev".)

Satoshi was able to compete with the existing monetary system purely on the strength of his ideas. If yours are so good then why can't you compete with Bitcoin? If you step back and think about it carefully then you'll probably realize that there's nothing really wrong with Bitcoin and you are incredibly worried about vague probabilities.

[Mr. Gabu]

Because I believe in Satoshis values and in good people like Adam Back or Gregoy Maxwell.

Augusto Croppo: You are the best example showing what Bitcoin makes bad. You tell me to go, because I stand up against these nuisances.

This all is a disgrace to Satoshi.

[Mr. Gabu]

anti-scam: Yeah, nothing wrong. Only black-listing, paying for SSL certs to be an merchant (maybe only an US CA will be allowed that brided the faildation most) and passport waiving to run a full node is coming up. All ok great.

What's Hearn working next on?

- Making it impossible to run nodes in countries that USA has an trade embargo against?  
- Introducing chargebacks into Bitcoin as part of customer care and anti fraud technique?
- Requiring passport and drivers license to run a node?
- Bitcoin Improvement Proposals by friends of the foundation like NSA and GSHQ?